````````

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2016 05:39PM by WingNut.

It has come up in a handful of divorce settlements in the past several years.

This now falls under code compliance, the sex and marriage code of Fairfax County.

Code compliance, alerted of a violation, will investigate. For this offense, there are criminal actions, including jail time and civi penalties ranging between $500 and $10000 depending on various factors.

Actual risk of being arrested for this overblown crap doesn't suit the agenda of the opposition, much like stand your ground had nothing to do with Zimmerman's case.

Yes. Actually it was solicitation of sodomy, but still a felony. There were several of these cases in Roanoke around 2000. With sodomy being a felony that means you can also convict someone for soliciting it or for conspiracy to commit it.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the last 40 years?
>
> I'm sure someone got charged in the 1930's or so,
> but probably some queer playing the old skin flute
> in a public park somewhere. Or prostitution
> related.
>
> Did VA police EVER really kick in doors and bust
> hetero couples doing whatever in the privacy of
> their homes?
>
> It sounds a little silly to still have on the
> books, but isn't it a little overblown that
> Kookenelli is really looking to balls out
> criminalize butt sex?
>
> I know you libtards need causes to give your
> medicated screen dependent lives meaning, but
> isn't this overblown?

I don't know if they kicked in doors, but if they discovered you blowing a drunken Marine Corporal in your car on the side of Little River Turnpike in Lincolnia, they sure as fuck did arrest you, at least in 1952.

Bear in mind that Ken has opposed amending the statute to make it clear that it doesn't apply to sex acts between consenting adults, gay OR straight, because, y'know, the children, and gay is icky.

KenDreamsOfBigBoners Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bear in mind that Ken has opposed amending the
> statute to make it clear that it doesn't apply to
> sex acts between consenting adults, gay OR
> straight, because, y'know, the children, and gay
> is icky.

+1

So there you have it: The kookster is just plain too extreme for VA.


Attachments:

.......and they know it!!

The Kookster knows that his existance is pointless, his knowledge base is limited and his grievances are baseless.

He knows that Obama is a fool.

BUT...what the kookster doesnt know, which is a LOT...is going to get him killed.
I gaurantee it...

Liberals are pathetic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Kookster knows that his existance is
> pointless, his knowledge base is limited and his
> grievances are baseless.

One word: Spellcheck.

> BUT...what the kookster doesnt know, which is a
> LOT...is going to get him killed.
> I gaurantee it...

Do tell, what will be my ultimate demise?

Is there any doubt that Ken Cuccinelli, when he falls asleep, dreams of being on his knees in front of a big old boner? Man, when you run into somebody who can get that ka-razzzy about changing the law to make it clear that, y'know, the state's not really in the business of regulating sex acts between consenting adults, gay or straight, it's a pretty safe bet that Ken's uncomfortable about gayness because his dreams are pretty darned gay.

answers to the questions Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actual risk of being arrested for this overblown
> crap doesn't suit the agenda of the opposition,
> much like stand your ground had nothing to do with
> Zimmerman's case.


Actually, stand your ground does have everything to do with Zimmerman's case as the judge specifically included it in the jury instructions:

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

As for the Kookster's penchant for being overly interested in homosexuality and sodomy, the argument that the LIKELYHOOD of being arrested for breaking a law should somehow negate concern for the law existing is ludicrous.

The idea that we should allow our legislators to create and place laws on the books that "probably won't be really used, so don't worry about it" is crazy.

Fact is, once that law is placed on the books, they CAN begin actively enforcing it and the only option to address it is to take a case to the Supreme Court.

The problem with this whole law is precisely that. If it ever gets passed it will be enforced when it's most convenience/expediant and when it involves a case that is most likely to garner positive attention for the law. It will then weave it's way through the courts to the Supreme Court where they will have to essentially judge on the legality of homosexuality.

Obviously in hopes that the court would rule against it, because that's how fucktard closed-minded, hate-filled, self-righteous blowhards (aka conservatives) work.

I LOVE this stuff!

OK, maybe a little too much.

But it's not a problem!

Really.

Promise.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. Actually it was solicitation of sodomy, but
> still a felony. There were several of these cases
> in Roanoke around 2000. With sodomy being a
> felony that means you can also convict someone for
> soliciting it or for conspiracy to commit it.

You do understand thats prostitution when you solicit it right?

Try again this time find to consensual adults who just got charged for doing it

duhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually, stand your ground does have everything
> to do with Zimmerman's case as the judge
> specifically included it in the jury
> instructions:
>
> http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimme
> rman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf
>
> "If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an
> unlawful activity and was attacked in any place
> where he had a right to be, he had no duty to
> retreat and had the right to stand his ground and
> meet force with force, including deadly force if
> he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do
> so to prevent death or great bodily harm to
> himself or another or to prevent the commission of
> a forcible felony."

The case was self defense period.

> As for the Kookster's penchant for being overly
> interested in homosexuality and sodomy, the
> argument that the LIKELYHOOD of being arrested for
> breaking a law should somehow negate concern for
> the law existing is ludicrous.
>
> The idea that we should allow our legislators to
> create and place laws on the books that "probably
> won't be really used, so don't worry about it" is
> crazy.
>
> Fact is, once that law is placed on the books,
> they CAN begin actively enforcing it and the only
> option to address it is to take a case to the
> Supreme Court.

No they cant. Lawrence v Texas look it up. Already been addressed.

> The problem with this whole law is precisely that.
> If it ever gets passed it will be enforced when
> it's most convenience/expediant and when it
> involves a case that is most likely to garner
> positive attention for the law. It will then weave
> it's way through the courts to the Supreme Court
> where they will have to essentially judge on the
> legality of homosexuality.

Learn what youre talking about before you go off on these tangents.

> Obviously in hopes that the court would rule
> against it, because that's how fucktard
> closed-minded, hate-filled, self-righteous
> blowhards (aka conservatives) work.

Again more partisan progressive bullshit from you.

I'm a serious candidate with your interests at heart!

Really.

LOLOLOLOL!

Whew... OK, sorry...

I tried but I just couldn't say that with a straight face.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the last 40 years?
>
> I'm sure someone got charged in the 1930's or so,
> but probably some queer playing the old skin flute
> in a public park somewhere. Or prostitution
> related.
>
> Did VA police EVER really kick in doors and bust
> hetero couples doing whatever in the privacy of
> their homes?
>
> It sounds a little silly to still have on the
> books, but isn't it a little overblown that
> Kookenelli is really looking to balls out
> criminalize butt sex?
>
> I know you libtards need causes to give your
> medicated screen dependent lives meaning, but
> isn't this overblown?


It's like one of those conservative efforts to woo religious fundamentalists by passing laws dealing with sex but without any intent to actually enforce them.

All the anti-abortion laws fall into this category. When liberals protest, conservatives can wink say "Come on, we're not really trying to stop abortions, we're just going after the fundie vote."

And then they can accuse liberals of over reacting. A brilliant strategy, despite its cynicism.

Terry sez... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a serious candidate with your interests at

Better than Kenny "stick-protuding-from-his-tight-ass" koo-koo-cinelli!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Attachments:

Kookenelli Calling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Terry sez... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm a serious candidate with your interests at
>
> Better than Kenny
> "stick-protuding-from-his-tight-ass"
> koo-koo-cinelli!
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>


Richmond, VA (AP: 2013/07/23) (FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE). At a press conference today, Virginia Attorney General and Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli strongly denied that he has a vendetta against homosexuals.

"If a gay Virginian wants to spend his nights with a huge penis nestled between his buttocks, thrusting against it as it spears him against a stained mattress, that's between him and his Lord. Personally, I find it appalling, even if the penis is huge and midnight black, and dripping with my own saliva before it's pushed inside my anus, moist and yearning . . . I'm sorry, what was the question?"

Bertman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It's like one of those conservative efforts to woo
> religious fundamentalists by passing laws dealing
> with sex but without any intent to actually
> enforce them.

No its not. Its used for child molestation, rape, and prostitution. Getting rid of the law would put anyone convicted from it at risk of going free or at the very least needed a new trial costing massive amounts of money.

> All the anti-abortion laws fall into this
> category. When liberals protest, conservatives
> can wink say "Come on, we're not really trying to
> stop abortions, we're just going after the fundie
> vote."

Yea why would you expect a place performing abortions to actually have medical standards right?

> And then they can accuse liberals of over
> reacting. A brilliant strategy, despite its
> cynicism.

You dont have to accuse them of anything all you have to do is read all the bullshit they print and their scare tactics they employ.

Liberal Logic 85 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> No they cant. Lawrence v Texas look it up.
> Already been addressed.
>
> Learn what youre talking about before you go off
> on these tangents.

Yes, you are correct. Once the Supreme Court hears any version of a case regarding a topic, that's it, it's over. FOREVER.


Wait.


Except for the fact that Lawrence v Texas overturned a previous SC decision.


Except for the fact that the only thing conservatives have tried to do less than repeal the ACA is find a way to overturn Roe v Wade.

andonandonandon


If anything, I think modern day republican politics would indicate that the Lawrence v Texas case would actually drive up the fevor of conservatives looking to figure out a way to bring some new case to the SC in order to overturn Lawrence v Texas in favor of their own 1884 outlook on things.

Kookster has never intimated that he has anything other than an old-fashion, old-world, old ass outlook on social policy. He has never had any qualms admitting his distaste for same-sex ANYTHING and on the contrary, has on multiple occasions stated he would work AGAINST same-sex anything so an attempt to paint this version of this law as anything other than a shot across the bow at same-sex couples/lifestyles is ridiculous.

Don't be trying to run that jive on me you rich white motherfucker.

We ain't dumb enough to be showin' up for you this time no matter what kinda bullshit you be talkin'

duhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anything so an attempt to paint this version of
> this law as anything other than a shot across the
> bow at same-sex couples/lifestyles is ridiculous.


Not nearly as ridiculous as this dumb talking point or anyone who thinks that Cuccinelli could actually do anything along such lines even if he wanted to.

But you're right in one way... The whole issue is just intended to present it as a 'shot across the bow' to motivate the Dem base to actually turn out and hold their noses and vote for McAntiprogressive. Nobody else gives a shit.

Ken prefers his black boys a little older . . . "Do you like gladiator movies?"

Ken and K-Y Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ken prefers his black boys a little older . . .
> "Do you like gladiator movies?"


How many does rich Masta McAuliffe own?

So, no one answers the question at all........neato!

You just harp about politicians.......great!

It is the law in Virginia, and you were asked if you have ever been charged - so the answer follows below:


YES

NO


I know that is really hard for you people to do, and way beyond your intellectual abilities, but try it sometime, you may like it.



My answer;

NO

All you sinners having oral sex will burn in hell!

God will not stand for oral or anal sex.

Lord King Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All you sinners having oral sex will burn in
> hell!
>
> God will not stand for oral or anal sex.


Well, I find it easier to lie down for anal, and kneel for oral. Standing is tricky.

Liberal Logic 85 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill.N. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes. Actually it was solicitation of sodomy,
> but
> > still a felony. There were several of these
> cases
> > in Roanoke around 2000. With sodomy being a
> > felony that means you can also convict someone
> for
> > soliciting it or for conspiracy to commit it.
>
> You do understand thats prostitution when you
> solicit it right?

You do understand LL that they are TWO SEPARATE CRIMES?

Solicitation of prostitution is a misdemeanor in Virginia. It requires that you show that you asked someone to have sex with you in return for cash (or possibly other property-ask one of the legal beagles about that).

Solicitation of a felony is itself a felony. If you ask someone to commit an act which is a felony, then you have committed solicitation. This is true regardless of whether you offered to pay them. If they agree then you have conspiracy.

This is the bitch about sodomy laws. If I offer to pay an adult woman (whatever the going rate is) to have sex with me, then I can be convicted of a misdemeanor. If instead I ask someone female or male to give me a blow job, even if I don't offer money for it, I've committed a felony.

Has Anyone Been Charged With Oral/Anal Sodomy in VA?

Yes, yes I have.

No, I've not been charged. I get it for free.

duhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, you are correct. Once the Supreme Court hears
> any version of a case regarding a topic, that's
> it, it's over. FOREVER.
>
>
> Wait.
>
>
> Except for the fact that Lawrence v Texas
> overturned a previous SC decision.
>
>
> Except for the fact that the only thing
> conservatives have tried to do less than repeal
> the ACA is find a way to overturn Roe v Wade.
>
> andonandonandon
>
>
> If anything, I think modern day republican
> politics would indicate that the Lawrence v Texas
> case would actually drive up the fevor of
> conservatives looking to figure out a way to bring
> some new case to the SC in order to overturn
> Lawrence v Texas in favor of their own 1884
> outlook on things.
>
> Kookster has never intimated that he has anything
> other than an old-fashion, old-world, old ass
> outlook on social policy. He has never had any
> qualms admitting his distaste for same-sex
> ANYTHING and on the contrary, has on multiple
> occasions stated he would work AGAINST same-sex
> anything so an attempt to paint this version of
> this law as anything other than a shot across the
> bow at same-sex couples/lifestyles is ridiculous.

Do you ever base anything in actual facts and reality or do you just go on progressive rants all the time?

You really dont seem to have much of an understanding of the law or how things work.

Thanks for more bullshit scare tactics though. They are always entertaining to read.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You do understand LL that they are TWO SEPARATE
> CRIMES?
>
> Solicitation of prostitution is a misdemeanor in
> Virginia. It requires that you show that you
> asked someone to have sex with you in return for
> cash (or possibly other property-ask one of the
> legal beagles about that).
>
> Solicitation of a felony is itself a felony. If
> you ask someone to commit an act which is a
> felony, then you have committed solicitation.
> This is true regardless of whether you offered to
> pay them. If they agree then you have conspiracy.
>
>
> This is the bitch about sodomy laws. If I offer
> to pay an adult woman (whatever the going rate
> is) to have sex with me, then I can be convicted
> of a misdemeanor. If instead I ask someone female
> or male to give me a blow job, even if I don't
> offer money for it, I've committed a felony.

For prostitution its an enhancement charge for those that get caught they deem deserve some extra time like a known criminal. Its far more important role is for rapists and child molesters.

The obvious route is dont get prostitutes and youre fine.

Its all a trade off, keeping those in jail who have had it used against them in much more serious cases is far more important than johns. Theres really not much chance a first time offender of that is serving felony jail time anyway. Youd have to have a past or something else going on.

Here's one who soon will be!


http://bristowbeat.com/news/071713-bristow-man-charged-with-producing-child-pornography/

Lord King Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God will not stand for oral or anal sex.

Silly Rabbit! Everyone knows it's better when lying down!

Sorry this is so long but I searched for sodomy arrests.

Almost all charges are for forcible sodomy or rape. I searched the first few names that had only sodomy listed as the charge and all showed the sodomy charge was part of another offense usually involving children or statutory rape.


Searched for: Offense: sodomy
179 matches found, up to first 500 displayed
"AGUIRRE ","FELIPE ","C","037"," 12801","BLUHILL ","RD","SILVER SPRG ","MD","02/25/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"AHMED ","AMINUDEEN ","I","021"," 5420","RICHENBACHER ","AV","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","08/03/2007","SODOMY "
"ALBION ","ROMAN "," ","020"," ","NO FIXED "," "," "," ","08/22/2008","SODOMY "
"ALEXANDER ","RAYMOND ","C","035"," 5908","BUSH HILL ","DR","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","07/25/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"ANDERSON ","ANGEL ","M","055"," 102","DEBRA ","DR","STAFFORD ","VA","03/24/2004","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"ARGUETA GUTIERREZ ","JULIO ","G","020"," 6111","BRANDON ","AV","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","06/29/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"ARTEAGA ","RAFAEL ","D","059"," 5804","CRAIG ","ST","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","06/14/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"ATARI ","MAHER ","M","038"," 14624","STONE RANGE ","DR","CENTREVILLE ","VA","08/27/2004","RAPE SODOMY ATTMPT "
"AYALA ","JOSE ","R","053"," 6411","RICHMOND # 2 ","HY","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","09/19/2005","RAPE SODOMY ATTMPT "
"AYALA ","JOSE ","R","053"," 6411","RICHMOND # 2 ","HY","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","09/19/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"AYALA PEREZ ","DENNIS ","A","019"," 6178","LEESBURG 102 ","PK","FALLS CHURCH","VA","11/05/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BACA RAMIREZ ","LUCIANO "," ","032"," 6017","DINWITIE ","ST","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","09/07/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BAECHT ","BRAD ","T","021"," 10024","WOOD SORREL ","LA","BURKE ","VA","08/04/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BAECHT ","BRAD ","T","021"," 10024","WOOD SORREL ","LA","BURKE ","VA","08/04/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BARLOW ","SPENCER ","H","029"," 9575","FORT FOOTE ","RD","FT WASHINGTO","MD","03/07/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BAUTISTA GALINDO ","ALDO "," ","023"," 375","S REYNOLDS ","ST","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","09/02/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BAYLES ","WAYNE ","W","063"," 39","DOLPHIN POINT ","DR","BEAUFORT ","SC","03/29/2007","SODOMY "
"BECKFORD ","ANTHONY ","L","026"," 3626","PEARTREE ","CT","SILVER SPRIN","MD","02/04/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BLANCO ","JOSE ","L","025"," 5720","ASH ","DR","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","07/28/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BOOTH ","CALVIN ","F","054"," 2204","DARTMOUTH ","DR","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","05/14/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BOOTH ","CALVIN ","F","054"," 2204","DARTMOUTH ","DR","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","05/14/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BOOTH ","CALVIN ","F","054"," 2204","DARTMOUTH ","DR","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","05/14/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BOURN ","ANDREW ","C","046"," 9901","MOSBY ","RD","FAIRFAX ","VA","05/04/2001","SODOMY "
"BRASHEAR ","JOEL "," ","034"," ","US ARMY FT BELVOIR "," ","FAIRFAX ","VA","08/20/2008","SODOMY "
"BROOKS ","TONY ","E","044"," 2807","MARY ","ST","FALLS CHURCH","VA","09/22/2003","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BROOKS ","TONY ","E","044"," 2807","MARY ","ST","FALLS CHURCH","VA","09/22/2003","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BROWN ","BRAHIM ","K","021"," 5701","HARWICH ","CT","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","11/21/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BROWN ","BRAHIM ","K","021"," 5701","HARWICH ","CT","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","11/21/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BROWN ","BRIAN ","K","037"," 7001","SKLYES #204 ","WY","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","02/21/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BROWN ","BRIAN ","K","037"," 7001","SKLYES #204 ","WY","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","02/21/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BROWN ","BRIAN ","K","037"," 7001","SKLYES #204 ","WY","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","02/21/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BROWN ","CHRISTOPHER ","P","054"," 7718","CAPRON ","CT","LORTON ","VA","01/09/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BROWN ","CHRISTOPHER ","P","056"," 8816","MCNAIR ","DR","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","12/17/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BROWN ","CHRISTOPHER ","P","056"," 8816","MCNAIR ","DR","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","12/17/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"BROWN ","GARY ","D","049"," 7442","LARNE ","LA","LORTON ","VA","03/27/2009","SODOMY "
"BUI ","TUY ","T","032"," 2532","DREXEL ","ST","VIENNA ","VA","01/23/2002","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"CAMACUARI ","DESIDERIO ","L","071"," 4614","DEMINE ","AV","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","03/20/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"CARBAJAL ","MANUEL "," ","040"," 9610","CHAPEL HILL ","DR","BURKE ","VA","09/03/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"CARPIO ","ALFREDO ","E","030"," 2770","HYSON ","LN","FALLS CHURCH","VA","05/04/2001","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"CARPIO ","ALFREDO ","E","030"," 2770","HYSON ","LN","FALLS CHURCH","VA","05/04/2001","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"CARVAJAL ","JULIO ","A","030"," 7004","BEDROCK ","RD","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","03/04/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"CLARK ","ROBERT ","L","021"," ","UNKNOWN "," "," "," ","08/05/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"CLARK ","TROY ","D","042"," 7133","RICHMOND 76 ","HY","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","02/09/2006","SODOMY "
"COREA ","RONY ","F","032"," 5904","OTLEY ","DR","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","01/17/2006","SODOMY "
"CRANDELL ","LOUIS "," ","053"," 9504","BRADDOCK ","RD","FAIRFAX ","VA","09/16/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"CRUZ ","ANTHONY "," ","037"," 13388","RUSHING WATER ","WY","GAITHERSBURG","MD","03/11/2004","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"DELAWARE ","ANTHONY ","N","034"," 13954","ROCKLAND VILLAGE 304","DR","CHANTILLY ","VA","01/22/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"DOLE ","DEXTER "," ","061"," ","NO FIXE "," "," "," ","04/01/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"DOMINGUEZ ","RAYMOND ","C","021"," ","NO ADDRESS RECORDED "," "," "," ","03/01/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"DURBIN ","KERRY ","C","042"," 8424","RICHMOND ","HY","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","07/20/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"EMBREY ","DANIEL "," ","019"," 7931","RUSSELL ","RD","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","08/11/2005","SODOMY "
"FAHBULLEH ","MOMO ","T","039"," 21050","LOWRY PARK #300 ","TE","ASHBURN ","VA","04/24/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"FAKIR ","MIKE ","S","021"," 3912","EGAN ","DR","FAIRFAX ","VA","08/11/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"FAKUNLE ","AYODEJI "," ","023"," 3506","56TH ","ST","HYATTSVILLE ","MD","01/07/2004","SODOMY "
"FELDBAUER ","STEPHEN ","M","045"," 6276","EDSALL #202 ","RD","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","11/11/2004","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"FERMAN ","ELMER ","R","024"," 6813","FLOYD ","AV","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","01/11/2005","RAPE SODOMY ATTMPT "
"FLORES MAGANA ","MIGUEL ","A","035"," 6012","VISTA ","DR","FALLS CHURCH","VA","01/16/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"FREEMAN ","JAMES "," ","021"," 7952","SEVEN WOODS #A ","DR","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","02/09/2006","SODOMY "
"GALO LAINEZ ","LUIS ","A","022"," 6005","KNOLLWOOD ","DR","FALLS CHURCH","VA","07/07/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"GONZALEZ LOPEZ ","MANO ","A","032"," 3413","CARLIN SPRING ","RD","FALLS CHURCH","VA","02/16/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"GOODWIN ","RAMON ","Q","025"," 7805","LEWIS CHAPEL ","CI","LORTON ","VA","05/01/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"GUERRERO ","NELSON ","E","019"," 10803","SCOTT ","DR","FAIRFAX ","VA","10/11/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"GUTIERREZ ","DORAN ","M","028"," 921","S BUCHANNAN #91 ","ST","ARLINGTON ","VA","02/05/2003","SODOMY "
"GUZMAN ","GERMAN "," ","045"," 7327","MARC ","DR","FALLS CHURCH","VA","07/07/2003","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"GUZMAN SORTO ","JOSE ","F","032"," 7618","SAVANNAH # 202 ","ST","FALLS CHURCH","VA","08/28/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"GUZMAN SORTO ","JOSE ","F","032"," 7618","SAVANNAH # 202 ","ST","FALLS CHURCH","VA","08/28/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"HAMILTON ","JOHN ","E","038"," 14120","GABRIELLE ","WY","CENTREVILLE ","VA","06/05/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"HAMILTON ","JOHN ","E","038"," 14120","GABRIELLE ","WY","CENTREVILLE ","VA","06/05/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"HEARNE ","JOHN ","W","071"," 1316","SWINDOW ","CT","RELEIGH ","NC","10/21/2004","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"HOLLAND ","TROY ","D","038"," 62","MALLARD ","CT","CHARLES TOWN","WV","05/04/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"HOLLAND ","TROY ","D","038"," 62","MALLARD ","CT","CHARLES TOWN","WV","05/04/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"HUFF ","HERBERT ","A","038"," 3804","ARCHER ","PL","KENSINTON ","MD","01/17/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"HUYNH ","NAM ","Q","043"," 9208","SYCAMORE CREST ","DR","FAIRFAX ","VA","07/31/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"ILLIDGE ","FRANKLIN "," ","075"," 8613","LAGRANE ","DR","LORTON ","VA","07/16/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"IM ","STEPHEN ","F","022"," 13153","QUAIL CREEK ","LA","FAIRFAX ","VA","09/05/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"IM ","STEPHEN ","F","022"," 13153","QUAIL CREEK ","LA","FAIRFAX ","VA","09/05/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"IM ","STEPHEN ","F","024"," 105","AVERY ","CT","SUFFOLK ","VA","09/05/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"IRBY ","RODERIC ","A","044"," 7672","WOODSTREAM ","CT","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","12/11/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"JIRON ","FRANCISCO ","L","032"," 5622","BROADMOOR ","ST","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","01/31/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"JOHNSON ","CHASE "," ","024"," 7110","RICHARD CASEY ","CT","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","07/17/2009","SODOMY "
"JUGGINS ","MAURICE "," ","047"," 566","HOPE ","RD","STAFFORD ","VA","11/29/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"KEYES ","DAVID ","W","047"," 11340","WAPLES MILL ","RD","OAKTON ","VA","08/31/2001","SODOMY "
"KEYES ","DAVID ","W","047"," 11340","WAPLES MILL ","RD","OAKTON ","VA","08/31/2001","SODOMY "
"KEYES ","DAVID ","W","047"," 11340","WAPLES MILL ","RD","OAKTON ","VA","08/31/2001","SODOMY "
"KRAUS ","GEORGE ","W","029"," 5840","CAMERON RUN ","TE","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","07/31/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"KRAUS ","GEORGE ","W","029"," 5840","CAMERON RUN ","TE","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","07/31/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"KRAUS ","GEORGE ","W","029"," 5840","CAMERON RUN ","TE","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","07/31/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"KRAUS ","GEORGE ","W","029"," 5840","CAMERON RUN ","TE","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","07/31/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"KRAUS ","GEORGE ","W","029"," 5840","CAMERON RUN ","TE","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","07/31/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"LASEAU ","JOSEPH ","N","075"," 8212","CHANCERY ","CT","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","08/29/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"LAY ","JOHN ","R","046"," 7806","TRAMMEL ","RD","ANNANDALE ","VA","01/24/2002","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"LOPEZ ","JORGE ","H","035"," 2827","JAMES ","DR","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","10/16/2003","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"MACHUCA ","FRANCISCO ","J","027"," ","NO FIXED "," "," "," ","03/27/2004","RAPE SODOMY ATTMPT "
"MACHUCA ","FRANCISCO ","J","027"," ","NO FIXED "," "," "," ","03/27/2004","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"MACHUCA ","FRANCISCO ","J","027"," ","NO FIXED "," "," "," ","03/27/2004","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"MATINEZ ","JOSE ","N","035"," 2923","PEYTON RANDOLPH ","DR","FALLS CHURCH","VA","08/16/2006","RAPE SODOMY ATTMPT "
"MCDONALD ","CHARLES ","E","024"," 5055","SEMWARD #142 ","RD","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","07/07/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"MCDONALD ","CHARLES ","E","024"," 5055","SEMWARD #142 ","RD","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","07/07/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"MCRAE ","PATRICK ","K","030"," 1243","MELGS NE ","PL","WASHINGTON ","DC","04/24/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"MELENDEZ CASTRO ","JUAN ","A","034"," 6034","BELLVIEW # 5 ","DR","FALLS CHURCH","VA","08/11/2004","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"MERCADO JORDAN ","JOSE ","L","056"," 13704","JOYCE ","RD","WOODBRIDGE ","VA","06/28/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"MIJANGOS REYES ","ALFREDO "," ","031"," 3303","WILLOW CRESCENT # 13","DR","OAKTON ","VA","05/22/2006","RAPE SODOMY ATTMPT "
"MILLER ","CHAD ","L","036"," 10700","WELLINGTON ","ST","FREDERICKSBU","VA","08/06/2002","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"MILLER ","CHAD ","L","036"," 10700","WELLINGTON ","ST","FREDERICKSBU","VA","08/06/2002","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"NAYLOR ","JOHN ","E","036"," 81","ELEMENTARY ","RD","REED SPRIN ","MD","03/25/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"NAYLOR ","JOHN ","E","036"," 81","ELEMENTARY ","RD","REED SPRIN ","MD","03/25/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"NELOMS ","QUENTIN ","L","021"," 6583","GRANGE 302 ","LN","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","06/26/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"NELSEN ","ERIC ","A","026"," 9461","DERAMUS FARM ","CT","VIENNA ","VA","11/14/2007","SODOMY "
"NEWMAN ","DANIEL ","W","024"," 6363","BERYL #4 ","RD","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","04/14/2005","RAPE SODOMY ATTMPT "
"NICHOLAS ","SCOTT ","L","055"," 3803","CHANTAL ","LA","FAIRFAX ","VA","04/24/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"NICHOLAS ","SCOTT ","L","055"," 3803","CHANTAL ","LA","FAIRFAX ","VA","04/24/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"OMABTANG ","RODRIGO ","M","048"," 1299","SEASIDE ","AV","SAN PEDRO ","CA","09/02/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"PARSONS ","PETER ","C","039"," 107","AMES ","ST","FAIRFAX ","VA","08/10/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"PEIRCE ","MARK ","F","039"," 3004","AKRON ","ST","DALE CITY ","VA","03/25/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"PICOT ","GERALD ","Q","021"," 6102","HAVENER HOUSE 5 ","WY","CENTREVILLE ","VA","08/24/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"PIERRE LOUISE ","DESMOND ","K","045"," 6547","GREYLEDGE ","CT","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","11/17/2003","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"POOLER ","DAVID ","H","036"," 2924","HIDEAWAY ","RD","FAIRFAX ","VA","01/09/2007","SODOMY "
"POOLER ","DAVID ","H","036"," 2924","HIDEAWAY ","RD","FAIRFAX ","VA","01/09/2007","SODOMY "
"POOLER ","DAVID ","H","036"," 2924","HIDEAWAY ","RD","FAIRFAX ","VA","01/09/2007","SODOMY "
"PRICE ","WILLIAM ","R","084"," 6809","LOIS ","DR","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","05/19/2004","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"RAMIREZ ORTEGA ","JAIME ","A","031"," 7404","STINSON ","RD","ALEXADRIA ","VA","03/16/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"RAMOS AYALA ","RONY ","E","031"," 4132","WADSWORTH ","CT","ANNANDALE ","VA","05/25/2001","RAPE SODOMY ATTMPT "
"RAMSUER ","LARONN "," ","019"," 2229","LOVEDALE #F ","LA","RESTON ","VA","04/03/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"RAMSUER ","LARONN "," ","019"," 2229","LOVEDALE #F ","LA","RESTON ","VA","04/03/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"RICHARDSON ","ROBERT ","D","049"," ","NFA "," "," "," ","05/19/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"RIVERA CASTELLANOS","DILMER "," ","026"," 6419","QUINCEY ","PL","FALLS CHURCH","VA","04/30/2004","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"RIVERA CASTELLANOS","DILMER "," ","026"," 6419","QUINCEY ","PL","FALLS CHURCH","VA","04/30/2004","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"RODRIGUEZ ","ADHEMAR ","O","032"," 9969","WHITEWATER ","DR","BURKE ","VA","10/19/2001","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"RODRIGUEZ ","ELISEO "," ","050"," 6589","BRADDOCK ","RD","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","04/26/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"RODRIQUEZ ","ALVARO ","J","027"," 10173","OAKTON TERRACE ","RD","OAKTON ","VA","09/07/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"ROPER ","DONALD ","H","040"," 5518","LEAVELLS CROSSING ","DR","FREDERICKSBU","VA","11/02/1991","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"ROPER ","DONALD ","H","040"," 5518","LEAVELLS CROSSING ","DR","FREDERICKSBU","VA","11/02/1991","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"RUCKER ","BRIAN ","P","018"," 3441","KING ARTHUR ","RD","ANNANDALE ","VA","04/28/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SANDRES ","JESUS ","M","041"," 7204","COMMERCE ","ST","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","08/20/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SANDRES ","JESUS ","M","041"," 7204","COMMERCE ","ST","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","08/20/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SANDRES ","JESUS ","M","041"," 7204","COMMERCE ","ST","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","08/20/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SANDRES ","JESUS ","M","041"," 7204","COMMERCE ","ST","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","08/20/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SANDRES ","JESUS ","M","041"," 7204","COMMERCE ","ST","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","08/20/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SANDRES ","JESUS ","M","041"," 7204","COMMERCE ","ST","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","08/20/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SETLIFF ","MICHAEL ","G","044"," 10373","LEIGH JILLION ","CT","OAKTON ","VA","12/10/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SHECKELS ","MICHAEL ","K","033"," 14200","MIDRIGAL ","DR","WOODBRIDGE ","VA","03/09/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SIMS ","BRADLEY ","A","038"," 2708","SOUTH NELSON #B ","ST","ARLINGTON ","VA","02/27/2006","RAPE SODOMY ATTMPT "
"SIMS ","BRADLEY ","A","040"," 2708","SOUTH NELSON #B ","ST","ARLINGTON ","VA","02/05/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SINGLETON ","ROOSEVELT "," ","049"," ","P O BOX 450 "," ","BRUCETON ","WV","03/05/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SIRAKES ","JOSEPH "," ","037"," 7213","LEVENDAR ","LN","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","08/08/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SIRAKES ","JOSEPH "," ","037"," 7213","LEVENDAR ","LN","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","08/08/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SISLEMA LASSO ","JESUS ","V","040"," 7114","MINT ","PL","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","10/16/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SORIA ","RIGOBERTO ","R","048"," 3511","LEESBURG ","CT","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","11/12/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SORIA ","RIGOBERTO ","R","048"," 3511","LEESBURG ","CT","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","11/12/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SORIA ","RIGOBERTO ","R","048"," 3511","LEESBURG ","CT","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","11/12/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SORIA ","RIGOBERTO ","R","048"," 3511","LEESBURG ","CT","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","11/12/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SOTO ","CARLOS ","R","024"," 9808","LAKEPOINTE ","DR","BURKE ","VA","01/11/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SOTO ","CARLOS ","R","024"," 9808","LAKEPOINTE ","DR","BURKE ","VA","01/11/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SOTO ","CARLOS ","R","024"," 9808","LAKEPOINTE ","DR","BURKE ","VA","01/11/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SPINNER ","SEAN ","L","035"," 6510","MAJOR ","ST","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","12/16/2008","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"STOTTS ","GREGORY ","S","022"," 6602","OAK ORCHARD ","CT","CLINTON ","MD","10/12/2004","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"STROUSE ","AMY ","M","032"," 2908","13TH ","ST","WASHINGTON ","DC","06/20/2001","SODOMY "
"SWEAZEN ","JOHN ","R","034"," 10416","LAKE RIDGE ","DR","OAKTON ","VA","09/15/2003","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"SWEAZEN ","JOHN ","R","035"," 10416","LAKE RIDGE ","DR","OAKTON ","VA","03/16/2004","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"TAVARA ","SANTIAGO "," ","070"," 7934","BENTLEY VILLAGE ","DR","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","08/01/2005","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"TAYLOR ","DAVID ","A","036"," 2102","SUGARLOAF ","CT","HERNDON ","VA","11/21/2001","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"TAYLOR ","DAVID ","A","036"," 2102","SUGARLOAF ","CT","HERNDON ","VA","11/21/2001","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"TELLEZ BAUTISTA ","TEODORO "," ","024"," ","NO FIXED "," "," "," ","07/14/2002","RAPE SODOMY ATTMPT "
"TURMAN ","MYRON ","J","037"," 1220","L NW ","ST","WASHINGTON ","DC","10/06/2002","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"VALDEZ ","MARIO ","R","029"," 9529","BLAKE T3 ","LA","FAIRFAX ","VA","11/19/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"VAUGHN ","MICHAEL ","A","039"," 16120","NEABSCO ","RD","WOODBRIDGE ","VA","07/13/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"VILLANUEVA ","EVER ","O","022"," 5920","PRINCE JAMES ","DR","SPRINGFIELD ","VA","06/05/2006","RAPE SODOMY ATTMPT "
"VILLATORO GARCIA ","JOSE ","R","036"," 8494","RICHMOND #103 ","HY","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","01/30/2003","SODOMY "
"VILLATORO GARCIA ","JOSE ","R","036"," 8494","RICHMOND #103 ","HY","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","01/30/2003","SODOMY "
"VILLHEV GONZALES ","MARCO ","A","036"," 4408","ISLAND #T3 ","PL","ANNANDALE ","VA","09/04/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"WHITE ","RICHARD ","C","018"," 7338","LEE #T1 ","HY","FALLS CHURCH","VA","05/17/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"WHITE ","RICHARD ","C","018"," 7338","LEE #T1 ","HY","FALLS CHURCH","VA","05/17/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"WHITE ","TERRY ","M","041"," 539","ROCK E ","ST","HARRISONBURG","VA","04/09/2004","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"WHITLOW ","DAVID ","R","053"," 4905","STALEY ","DR","SUMMERVILLE ","SC","10/26/2009","SODOMY "
"WHITLOW ","DAVID ","R","053"," 4905","STALEY ","DR","SUMMERVILLE ","SC","10/26/2009","SODOMY "
"WHITLOW ","DAVID ","R","053"," 4905","STALEY ","DR","SUMMERVILLE ","SC","10/26/2009","SODOMY "
"WILLIAMS ","JAMES ","S","048"," 2218","ROLLINS ","DR","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","02/11/2009","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"WORDSWORTH ","WARREN ","K","044"," 6615","ROCK LAWN ","DR","CLIFTON ","VA","04/18/2007","SODOMY FORCIBLE "
"ZAMORA ","JESUS ","E","038"," 2918","IRVINGTON ","ST","FALLS CHURCH","VA","10/18/2006","SODOMY FORCIBLE "

Hey cool there's at least one chick name in there. I guess it could be a tranny though.

Liberal Logic 85 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The obvious route is dont get prostitutes and
> youre fine.
>
> Its all a trade off, keeping those in jail who
> have had it used against them in much more serious
> cases is far more important than johns. Theres
> really not much chance a first time offender of
> that is serving felony jail time anyway. Youd
> have to have a past or something else going on.

LL. I can't type this any slower, so I hope you will get it this time. SOLICITATION IS NOT LIMITED TO PROSTITUTION or other sex crimes. Solicitation is asking someone to commit a crime...and solicitation of a felony is itself a felony in Virginia. Solicitation to commit murder, arson, grand larceny etc. are crimes, and solicitation of a felony is itself a felony in Virginia

If you go up to an adult woman and ask her for sex, you might get your face slapped but you can't be charged with a crime. If you instead ask her for a blow job, even if you don't offer to pay anything, you can be charged with solicitation of sodomy. Notice the only difference between no crime and a felony is which orifice you are asking to insert your penis into.

Law is stupid and outdated, but where are the people being charged for consensual sodomy or solicitation?

More liberal hot air.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> LL. I can't type this any slower, so I hope you
> will get it this time. SOLICITATION IS NOT
> LIMITED TO PROSTITUTION or other sex crimes.
> Solicitation is asking someone to commit a
> crime...and solicitation of a felony is itself a
> felony in Virginia. Solicitation to commit
> murder, arson, grand larceny etc. are crimes, and
> solicitation of a felony is itself a felony in
> Virginia
>
> If you go up to an adult woman and ask her for
> sex, you might get your face slapped but you can't
> be charged with a crime. If you instead ask her
> for a blow job, even if you don't offer to pay
> anything, you can be charged with solicitation of
> sodomy. Notice the only difference between no
> crime and a felony is which orifice you are asking
> to insert your penis into.

I cant type this any slower, show me a single case where that happened.

Show me just one where someone was charged with a crime for getting a bj or having anal with another adult in a consensual manner. Just one.

I do like how youve now resorted to the same bullshit scare tactic methods though as well that arent even remotely based in fact or reality.

By the way just walking up to a stranger and asking for sex or a bj or anal is already illegal from other laws. Its called sexual harrassment as well as lewdness.

So do you have anything actually based in fact or reality or have we just gotten to the point where you descend into hyperbole?

JtwF9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry this is so long but I searched for sodomy
> arrests.
>
> Almost all charges are for forcible sodomy or
> rape. I searched the first few names that had only
> sodomy listed as the charge and all showed the
> sodomy charge was part of another offense usually
> involving children or statutory rape.
>


Forcible sodomy is a different section of the code so they are N/A with respect to this discussion.

For those listed for sodomy (below), as you said, all of those for which I could find info involved children.


"AHMED ","AMINUDEEN ","I","021"," 5420","RICHENBACHER ","AV","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","08/03/2007","SODOMY "
"ALBION ","ROMAN "," ","020"," ","NO FIXED "," "," "," ","08/22/2008","SODOMY "
"BAYLES ","WAYNE ","W","063"," 39","DOLPHIN POINT ","DR","BEAUFORT ","SC","03/29/2007","SODOMY "
"BOURN ","ANDREW ","C","046"," 9901","MOSBY ","RD","FAIRFAX ","VA","05/04/2001","SODOMY "
"BRASHEAR ","JOEL "," ","034"," ","US ARMY FT BELVOIR "," ","FAIRFAX ","VA","08/20/2008","SODOMY "
"BROWN ","GARY ","D","049"," 7442","LARNE ","LA","LORTON ","VA","03/27/2009","SODOMY "
"CLARK ","TROY ","D","042"," 7133","RICHMOND 76 ","HY","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","02/09/2006","SODOMY "
"COREA ","RONY ","F","032"," 5904","OTLEY ","DR","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","01/17/2006","SODOMY "
"EMBREY ","DANIEL "," ","019"," 7931","RUSSELL ","RD","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","08/11/2005","SODOMY "
"FAKUNLE ","AYODEJI "," ","023"," 3506","56TH ","ST","HYATTSVILLE ","MD","01/07/2004","SODOMY "
"FREEMAN ","JAMES "," ","021"," 7952","SEVEN WOODS #A ","DR","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","02/09/2006","SODOMY "
"GUTIERREZ ","DORAN ","M","028"," 921","S BUCHANNAN #91 ","ST","ARLINGTON ","VA","02/05/2003","SODOMY "
"JOHNSON ","CHASE "," ","024"," 7110","RICHARD CASEY ","CT","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","07/17/2009","SODOMY "
"KEYES ","DAVID ","W","047"," 11340","WAPLES MILL ","RD","OAKTON ","VA","08/31/2001","SODOMY "
"NELSEN ","ERIC ","A","026"," 9461","DERAMUS FARM ","CT","VIENNA ","VA","11/14/2007","SODOMY "
"POOLER ","DAVID ","H","036"," 2924","HIDEAWAY ","RD","FAIRFAX ","VA","01/09/2007","SODOMY "
"STROUSE ","AMY ","M","032"," 2908","13TH ","ST","WASHINGTON ","DC","06/20/2001","SODOMY "
"VILLATORO GARCIA ","JOSE ","R","036"," 8494","RICHMOND #103 ","HY","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","01/30/2003","SODOMY "
"WHITLOW ","DAVID ","R","053"," 4905","STALEY ","DR","SUMMERVILLE ","SC","10/26/2009","SODOMY "

Nobody has been charged with sodomy between consenting adults since at least 2003. Google doesn't tell you anything beyond Cuccinelli talking about the anti-sodomy law.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Liberal Logic 95 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I cant type this any slower, show me a single case
> where that happened.

I already mentioned the Roanoke cases from around 1999. Here are some more from about 10 minutes searching on the internet: Prince William in 2002, Ivy (Charlottesville area) in 1998 and Roanoke in 2005. There was a case in Newport News in 2004 that was plea bargained to indecent exposure. There were cases in Harrisonburg in 2004 that were apparently dismissed.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 95 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I cant type this any slower, show me a single
> case
> > where that happened.
>
> I already mentioned the Roanoke cases from around
> 1999. Here are some more from about 10 minutes
> searching on the internet: Prince William in
> 2002, Ivy (Charlottesville area) in 1998 and
> Roanoke in 2005. There was a case in Newport News
> in 2004 that was plea bargained to indecent
> exposure. There were cases in Harrisonburg in
> 2004 that were apparently dismissed.


Sexually harassing women (probably stalking) or getting a hooker and asking for anal isnt two consenting adults being prosecuted for engaging in a sex act.

Lets try this again. You keep showing me examples of where its been used to add extra time onto people committing crimes. Find me a case of two consenting adults prosecuted for it. Not someone sexually harassing someone, not someone trying to get a hooker, not sex in public, just a normal sex act not engaging in any other illegal behavior.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 95 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I cant type this any slower, show me a single
> case
> > where that happened.
>
> I already mentioned the Roanoke cases from around
> 1999. Here are some more from about 10 minutes
> searching on the internet: Prince William in
> 2002, Ivy (Charlottesville area) in 1998 and
> Roanoke in 2005. There was a case in Newport News
> in 2004 that was plea bargained to indecent
> exposure. There were cases in Harrisonburg in
> 2004 that were apparently dismissed.


All of which I'd guess likely were similar public solicitation cases.

Strange, you don't hear anyone talking about MD's very similar sodomy laws or anyone mentioning it when it's the executive director of the LGBT group Equality Maryland or the director of VA's ACLU chapter saying the exact same thing that Cuccinelli has. Even most of the LGBT members of MD's legislature dodged the question. lol



Lawmakers cautious about repealing Md. sodomy law
April 17, 2013
By Lou Chibbaro Jr. on April 17, 2013


Mary Washington, gay news, Washington Blade

Del. Mary Washington said she would be willing to introduce a bill to repeal Maryland’s sodomy law. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Gay and lesbian residents of Maryland may be surprised to learn that while their state approved a law last year that allows them to marry, it has yet to repeal an antiquated law that classifies their intimate sexual relations as a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

LGBT activists may also be surprised that only one of the eight openly gay members of the Maryland General Assembly confirmed to the Washington Blade that she would introduce legislation to repeal the state’s sodomy law.

“I definitely would introduce it,” said Del. Mary Washington (D-Baltimore City), who is one of five out lesbians serving in the Maryland House of Delegates.

“Now that we have marriage equality, it’s time to go back to old-school anti-discrimination and make sure we are protected at work to the fullest extent and that there aren’t any laws on the books that can be used against us,” Washington said.

The other four lesbian members of the House of Delegates, their two gay male colleagues, and the out gay member of the Maryland Senate, Richard Madaleno (D-Montgomery County) didn’t respond to written questions from the Blade asking whether they would introduce or vote for a sodomy law repeal bill.

Among those who didn’t respond are Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery County), who is considering running for governor, and Del. Maggie McIntosh (D-Baltimore City), who is considered a potential future candidate for the post of Speaker of the House.

Alan Brody, a spokesperson for Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler, said Gansler’s office isn’t aware of the state’s sodomy law being enforced since the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws.

Others familiar with Maryland’s law enforcement agencies say they aren’t aware of the sodomy statute being enforced since at least 1998, when a court ruled that the statute could no longer be enforced against consenting adults, gays or straights, for private, noncommercial sex.

But Carlos Maza, the author of a 2011 report released by the LGBT advocacy organization Equality Matters, told the Blade police and prosecutors in several states have continued to enforce their sodomy laws under various circumstances, apparently ignoring or blatantly disregarding the Supreme Court or state court rulings.

In his report, “State Sodomy Laws Continue to Target LGBT Americans,” Maza says many cases involving the arrest of an adult charged with consensual sex with another adult are eventually dismissed by courts citing the Supreme Court’s Lawrence decision. But the emotional stress of contending with an arrest and the expense of hiring a lawyer amounts to a penalty against LGBT people ensnared under sodomy laws even if the cases are dismissed, Maza says.

Gansler, who has a strong record of support for LGBT rights, and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), who was an outspoken supporter of the marriage equality law, are not expected to seek to enforce the sodomy laws, most LGBT activists agree.

Gansler spokesperson Brody acknowledged, however, that a future attorney general and prosecutors in counties throughout the state could seek to enforce the sodomy statute just as prosecutors have in other states.

Article 3-321 of the Maryland criminal code states, “A person who is convicted of sodomy [anal sex] is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.”

Article 3-322 of the code states, “A person may not: take the sexual organ of another or of an animal in the person’s mouth; place the person’s sexual organ in the mouth of another or of an animal; or commit another unnatural or perverted sexual practice with another or with an animal.”

The article adds, “A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both.”

Carrie Evans, executive director of the statewide LGBT rights group Equality Maryland, expressed caution that problems could surface if the sodomy law is repealed without making changes in other sections of the state criminal code.

In Virginia, the director of that state’s ACLU chapter, attorney Claire Gastanaga, said Virginia’s sodomy law is sometimes used to prosecute sexual assault cases and cases involving an adult sexually abusing a minor. Gastanaga noted that under Virginia’s criminal code, a sexual assault involving oral or anal sex isn’t always covered under the state’s rape law.

She said the repeal of Virginia’s sodomy or crime against nature law would have to be accompanied by a major overhaul of the criminal code pertaining to sexual assault, something she said lawmakers have been reluctant to do.

Evans said a similar situation may exist in Maryland.

“It’s not as easy as you would think to repeal old laws,” she said. “I would support a review of the code to see what should be repealed,” Evans said, when asked if Equality Maryland would call on the state’s lawmakers to repeal the sodomy law.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/04/17/lawmakers-cautious-about-repealing-md-sodomy-law/


Fucking hypocrites. lmao

The law harms nobody because it's impossible to prosecute. It's not worth the time to repeal it.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Was charged with forcible oral sex back in 2003 while in high school in fairfax co. Chick says I forced her to give me blowjob because she was drunk. Her parents filed complaint because my semen was all over her sweater and she lied to her parents and said I forced her into it. Scary time for me due to fact I was 18 and she was 16. Charges were dropped but it was a bad ordeal. The blowjob was pretty good for a girl with braces.

Hank Y Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was charged with forcible oral sex back in 2003
> while in high school in fairfax co. Chick says I
> forced her to give me blowjob because she was
> drunk. Her parents filed complaint because my
> semen was all over her sweater and she lied to her
> parents and said I forced her into it. Scary time
> for me due to fact I was 18 and she was 16.
> Charges were dropped but it was a bad ordeal. The
> blowjob was pretty good for a girl with braces.


If she swallowed her parents wouldnt have known anything. Never cum on a drunk high school girl and let her take her shirt home.

Hank Y Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was charged with forcible oral sex back in 2003
> while in high school in fairfax co. Chick says I
> forced her to give me blowjob because she was
> drunk. Her parents filed complaint because my
> semen was all over her sweater and she lied to her
> parents and said I forced her into it. Scary time
> for me due to fact I was 18 and she was 16.
> Charges were dropped but it was a bad ordeal. The
> blowjob was pretty good for a girl with braces.

Theres a lot of guys in jail because girls didnt want to admit to their parents they arent virgins anymore and are sexually active.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The law harms nobody because it's impossible to
> prosecute. It's not worth the time to repeal it.


More importantly repealing it would bring convictions into question and cause a massive amount of time and money to either get convictions to hold up or grant new trials. Some would certainly be set free and removed from child molester lists as well since any new law wouldnt be retro active to when the crimes were committed.

Liberal Logic 85 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill.N. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > You do understand LL that they are TWO SEPARATE
> > CRIMES?
> >
> > Solicitation of prostitution is a misdemeanor
> in
> > Virginia. It requires that you show that you
> > asked someone to have sex with you in return
> for
> > cash (or possibly other property-ask one of the
> > legal beagles about that).
> >
> > Solicitation of a felony is itself a felony.
> If
> > you ask someone to commit an act which is a
> > felony, then you have committed solicitation.
> > This is true regardless of whether you offered
> to
> > pay them. If they agree then you have
> conspiracy.
> >
> >
> > This is the bitch about sodomy laws. If I
> offer
> > to pay an adult woman (whatever the going rate
> > is) to have sex with me, then I can be
> convicted
> > of a misdemeanor. If instead I ask someone
> female
> > or male to give me a blow job, even if I don't
> > offer money for it, I've committed a felony.
>
> For prostitution its an enhancement charge for
> those that get caught they deem deserve some extra
> time like a known criminal. Its far more
> important role is for rapists and child molesters.
>
>
> The obvious route is dont get prostitutes and
> youre fine.
>
> Its all a trade off, keeping those in jail who
> have had it used against them in much more serious
> cases is far more important than johns. Theres
> really not much chance a first time offender of
> that is serving felony jail time anyway. Youd
> have to have a past or something else going on.


Gotta love LL's methods.

Clarify something for LL (aka, prove a point, refute LL, etc) and he/she modifies his/her argument.

And the name calling will start soon!

Butthurt, etc.

Re: Obama + Goldman Sachs > Bush + ENRON - Where's the Outrage?

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2015 08:16PM by WingNut.

Why not make sodomy like rape?

Sex between consenting adults-OK.

Sodomy between consenting adults-OK.

Sex with no consent/underage-rape.

Sodomy with no consent/underage-enhancement to rape, or a crime on its own.

Otherwise, it does open the door to all kinds of enforcement.

why not this way? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why not make sodomy like rape?
>
> Sex between consenting adults-OK.
>
> Sodomy between consenting adults-OK.
>
> Sex with no consent/underage-rape.
>
> Sodomy with no consent/underage-enhancement to
> rape, or a crime on its own.
>
> Otherwise, it does open the door to all kinds of
> enforcement.


It won't "open doors to all kinds of enforcement".


You can continue with this fantasy that you are fighting against some theocratic police state, but you are really not so brave.
Attachments:

You got me.

Well done.

Tangentially related to this discussion is Garfunkel and Oates' "The Loophole".

Sample lyric:

Fuck me in the ass 'cause I love Jesus.
The good Lord would want it that way.
Gimme that sweet sensation of a throbbing rationalization.
It's just between you and me,
'Cause everyone knows it's the sex that God can't see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZF_R_j0OY

Liberal Logic 85 Wrote:

>
> Do you ever base anything in actual facts and
> reality or do you just go on progressive rants all
> the time?
>
> You really dont seem to have much of an
> understanding of the law or how things work.
>
> Thanks for more bullshit scare tactics though.
> They are always entertaining to read.


Actually, my very first post linked directly to the official jury instructions in the Trayvon Martin case showing that the SYG laws did, in fact, have everything to do with that case. That is a fact.

Beyond that, any discussion based on the future of a law or theories on how that law will be utilized can not be based on "fact" due to the fact that it is, by definition theories about the future.

I submitted a theory on long-term prospects for this law as utilized by conservatives to further their social agenda. Your response that my theory is impossible because of Lawrence v Texas simply doesn't hold water.

I have plenty of knowledge of law & the simply fact is that you have to had a law on the books in order to have that law contested. You have to have that law contested through the appeals process until ultimately getting the Supreme Court to hear the case in order to have the Supreme Court make a decision on the conservative social agenda.

There are a myriad of ways this law could still be used in an attempt to achieve a SC decision furthering the conservative social agenda. Whether that happens or not, who knows.

What I do know is if a better written law is on the books that doesn't include criminalization of the gay community, the whole thing is moot. If the goal of the legislation is to protect children and NOT criminalize homosexuality, there's nothing stopping re-writing the law.

However, doing so goes against Kookster's proclaimed stance on homosexuality AND negates the future possibility for a SC decision on the topic so you have to wonder exactly why they refuse to rewrite the law to achieve their stated goal... unless their real goal isn't their stated goal.

As for having a fact based discussion, your engagement with me has amounted to "nuuuu uhhhhhh" so spare me your concern for a fact-based argument. You haven't presented one.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> People are not being arrested for consensual
> sodomy. Period. And they will not be ever.
> Period.


If there is a law against it on the books you can not guarantee it will not be enforced at some point in the future. Period. You can't.

That's the point. With the law on the books, all it would take is one governor without an interest in a 2nd term but a desire to push a ultra-conservative agenda to drastically alter people's lives for no other reason than their sexual preference.

Part of the reason for concern on this is that ultra-conservative politicians have shown an extreme willingness to do damn near anything they can to further that social agenda. Why should anyone be so confident this wouldn't come into play?

Especially when the impact could be years in jail, a conviction on your record hindering your future employment options etc.

Fuck that. These are the same people who are actively trying on a continuing basis across the whole country to put laws in place that are in direct violation of the Constitution in regards to anti-abortion laws.

You can't trust your life in the hands of these people when they have made it quite clear they do not approve, do not like and do not abide you or your lifestyle or choices.

Shifting sands Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Gotta love LL's methods.
>
> Clarify something for LL (aka, prove a point,
> refute LL, etc) and he/she modifies his/her
> argument.
>
> And the name calling will start soon!
>
> Butthurt, etc.


Nothing was ever refuted or modified. Im sorry if youve been struggling to follow this. Thanks for another brain busting progressive post

duhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually, my very first post linked directly to
> the official jury instructions in the Trayvon
> Martin case showing that the SYG laws did, in
> fact, have everything to do with that case. That
> is a fact.
>
> Beyond that, any discussion based on the future of
> a law or theories on how that law will be utilized
> can not be based on "fact" due to the fact that it
> is, by definition theories about the future.
>
> I submitted a theory on long-term prospects for
> this law as utilized by conservatives to further
> their social agenda. Your response that my theory
> is impossible because of Lawrence v Texas simply
> doesn't hold water.
>
> I have plenty of knowledge of law & the simply
> fact is that you have to had a law on the books in
> order to have that law contested. You have to have
> that law contested through the appeals process
> until ultimately getting the Supreme Court to hear
> the case in order to have the Supreme Court make a
> decision on the conservative social agenda.
>
> There are a myriad of ways this law could still be
> used in an attempt to achieve a SC decision
> furthering the conservative social agenda. Whether
> that happens or not, who knows.
>
> What I do know is if a better written law is on
> the books that doesn't include criminalization of
> the gay community, the whole thing is moot. If the
> goal of the legislation is to protect children and
> NOT criminalize homosexuality, there's nothing
> stopping re-writing the law.
>
> However, doing so goes against Kookster's
> proclaimed stance on homosexuality AND negates the
> future possibility for a SC decision on the topic
> so you have to wonder exactly why they refuse to
> rewrite the law to achieve their stated goal...
> unless their real goal isn't their stated goal.
>
> As for having a fact based discussion, your
> engagement with me has amounted to "nuuuu uhhhhhh"
> so spare me your concern for a fact-based
> argument. You haven't presented one.

Holy crap, were literally all dumber having read that.

Media Matters would be proud of that absurd diatribe you just went into.

You did at least answer my question, its quite clear youre just going to continue to make up bullshit to push your ideology.

You gave youself away ferfux/gerry/gordo with your stupid nickname of the kookster. Only youre circle jerk of morons comes up with those nick names thinking youre really clever but arent.

Ill let you get back to your bs now. This is the part where you start mentioning how slavery will come back and women will lose the right to vote

duhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> >
> > People are not being arrested for consensual
> > sodomy. Period. And they will not be ever.
> > Period.
>
>
> If there is a law against it on the books you can
> not guarantee it will not be enforced at some
> point in the future. Period. You can't.
>
> That's the point. With the law on the books, all
> it would take is one governor without an interest
> in a 2nd term but a desire to push a
> ultra-conservative agenda to drastically alter
> people's lives for no other reason than their
> sexual preference.
>
> Part of the reason for concern on this is that
> ultra-conservative politicians have shown an
> extreme willingness to do damn near anything they
> can to further that social agenda. Why should
> anyone be so confident this wouldn't come into
> play?
>
> Especially when the impact could be years in jail,
> a conviction on your record hindering your future
> employment options etc.
>
> Fuck that. These are the same people who are
> actively trying on a continuing basis across the
> whole country to put laws in place that are in
> direct violation of the Constitution in regards to
> anti-abortion laws.
>
> You can't trust your life in the hands of these
> people when they have made it quite clear they do
> not approve, do not like and do not abide you or
> your lifestyle or choices.

+1000000

And trying to have a rational conversation with LL is futile. But I appreciate the effort.

Thank You Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And trying to have a rational conversation with LL
> is futile. But I appreciate the effort.


Still waiting for those consensual adults that have been charged with sodomy just for doing the sex together in a private area............

Any day now.


Youve been saying this bullshit for weeks how long does it take to find something that should be so prevalent according to progressives.

Or is it satisfactory to you that it exists in your mind?

duhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If there is a law against it on the books you can
> not guarantee it will not be enforced at some
> point in the future. Period. You can't.
>
> That's the point. With the law on the books, all
> it would take is one governor without an interest
> in a 2nd term but a desire to push a
> ultra-conservative agenda to drastically alter
> people's lives for no other reason than their
> sexual preference.
>
> Part of the reason for concern on this is that
> ultra-conservative politicians have shown an
> extreme willingness to do damn near anything they
> can to further that social agenda. Why should
> anyone be so confident this wouldn't come into
> play?
>
> Especially when the impact could be years in jail,
> a conviction on your record hindering your future
> employment options etc.
>
> Fuck that. These are the same people who are
> actively trying on a continuing basis across the
> whole country to put laws in place that are in
> direct violation of the Constitution in regards to
> anti-abortion laws.
>
> You can't trust your life in the hands of these
> people when they have made it quite clear they do
> not approve, do not like and do not abide you or
> your lifestyle or choices.


BS. You could argue the same for any law regardless how unlikely to be enforced or otherwise limited including those not yet written.

The ONLY reason this story line is being pushed on the left is to try to spin up the Dem base by painting Cuccinelli in the way that they want him perceived for political purposes. As they typically do with all such issues. Period. Where's the outrage in the case of MD's equivalent law and the LGBT reps and the ACLU making the exact same argument that Cuccinelli is, as above?

If you want to talk about real potential issues with such laws including unfairly targeting gay males in gay-baiting public-solicitation-type efforts by law enforcement in some places, then that may be a reasonable concern. But that's not really the intent. It wouldn't get any attention or make for good headlines at TPM, Think Progress, etc., like "Cuccinelli Seeks to Outlaw Oral Sex!" It's politically motivated manipulative talking point bullshit pure and simple. Anyone who denies that is either an idiot or just not being honest about it.

Mkjcn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BS. You could argue the same for any law
> regardless how unlikely to be enforced or
> otherwise limited including those not yet
> written.
>
> The ONLY reason this story line is being pushed on
> the left is to try to spin up the Dem base by
> painting Cuccinelli in the way that they want him
> perceived for political purposes. As they
> typically do with all such issues. Period.
> Where's the outrage in the case of MD's equivalent
> law and the LGBT reps and the ACLU making the
> exact same argument that Cuccinelli is, as above?
>
> If you want to talk about real potential issues
> with such laws including unfairly targeting gay
> males in gay-baiting public-solicitation-type
> efforts by law enforcement in some places, then
> that may be a reasonable concern. But that's not
> really the intent. It wouldn't get any attention
> or make for good headlines at TPM, Think Progress,
> etc., like "Cuccinelli Seeks to Outlaw Oral Sex!"
> It's politically motivated manipulative talking
> point bullshit pure and simple. Anyone who denies
> that is either an idiot or just not being honest
> about it.

Bull. All we have to do is look at the recent spate of anti-abortion laws ostensibly designed to protect "women's health" (while, of course, having the exact opposite effect). There are no depths to which these people won't stoop to get their way.

What I really can't stand is the deliberate duplicity. If you want people to believe you, then you have to be honest with them. And these people are anything but honest.

Nose in the Tent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bull. All we have to do is look at the recent
> spate of anti-abortion laws ostensibly designed to
> protect "women's health" (while, of course, having
> the exact opposite effect). There are no depths to
> which these people won't stoop to get their way.
>

As a practical matter there is no way that Cuccinelli or anyone else will ever attempt to or be successful in pursuing what consenting adults gay or straight do sexually in private. That's the reality. If you want to play political games beyond that, knock yourself out. But it's rather obvious to most people with any sense so nobody's listening other than people who already inclined to so. Mostly it just makes you look ridiculous so not even a particularly good strategy beyond, as I said, maybe motivating some of your own troops.


> What I really can't stand is the deliberate
> duplicity. If you want people to believe you, then
> you have to be honest with them. And these people
> are anything but honest.

Exactly. It's a disingenuous Dem talking point. And you diminish what could be a valid argument around some aspects of such laws by trying to play things up into something that it's not. Let's call a spade a spade here. Fact is, you don't really give a shit about this law. You're just using it as an opportunity to take shots at Cuccinelli purely for political reasons.

H974D Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As a practical matter there is no way that
> Cuccinelli or anyone else will ever attempt to or
> be successful in pursuing what consenting adults
> gay or straight do sexually in private. That's
> the reality. If you want to play political games
> beyond that, knock yourself out. But it's rather
> obvious to most people with any sense so nobody's
> listening other than people who already inclined
> to so. Mostly it just makes you look ridiculous
> so not even a particularly good strategy beyond,
> as I said, maybe motivating some of your own
> troops.

Five years ago you might have said "As a practical matter there is no way that Cuccinelli or anyone else will ever attempt to or be successful in restricting the legal right to abortion." And I probably would have believed it. Now look where we are. And don't bother with the pretense of making clinics safer. You couldn't care less.

> > What I really can't stand is the deliberate
> > duplicity. If you want people to believe you,
> then
> > you have to be honest with them. And these
> people
> > are anything but honest.
>
> Exactly. It's a disingenuous Dem talking point.
> And you diminish what could be a valid argument
> around some aspects of such laws by trying to play
> things up into something that it's not. Let's
> call a spade a spade here. Fact is, you don't
> really give a shit about this law. You're just
> using it as an opportunity to take shots at
> Cuccinelli purely for political reasons.

I do give a shit about this law - as do many people - and other laws lke it. For starter's, we've become the laughingstock of the nation. More importantly, I think Cuccinelli is just plan batshit crazy and fundamentally evil. He would do incalcuble damage to women, the LGBT community, and anyone else he disagrees with (remember UVA?).

Mkjcn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> BS. You could argue the same for any law
> regardless how unlikely to be enforced or
> otherwise limited including those not yet
> written.


It is not BS. What part of my statement is BS?

Could the anti-sodomy law be used against the LBGT community to charge them with a crime for no other action than consensual sex between two adults?

I didn't say WILL. I didn't say HAS . I said COULD.

Theres nothing bullshit about my comment except you have decided it won't happen. Nothing more than some anonymous person's assumption on the internet. Meanwhile, the law still exists and the ability for that law to be misused still exists when in fact, the law could be re-written to remove any potential for misuse while still achieving it's stated goal.

Any other argument like the one about whether anyone has already been charged or not, whether there are other laws that aren't enforced, it's all just politics or anything else is nothing but strawman arguments.

The bottom line is that there is potential for legal abuse of the LBGT community for their sexual preference based on how the law is currently written and we are facing a race with a governor who has publicly declared his opposition to the LBGT community.

Period.



> Where's the outrage in the case of MD's equivalent
> law


I don't live in Maryland and last time I checked, Maryland's potential governor wasn't pulling an Anita Bryant.

Liberal Logic 85 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> "nuuuu uhhhhhhhhh"

(fixed for clarity)

Nose in the Tent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Five years ago you might have said "As a practical
> matter there is no way that Cuccinelli or anyone
> else will ever attempt to or be successful in
> restricting the legal right to abortion." And I
> probably would have believed it. Now look where we
> are. And don't bother with the pretense of making
> clinics safer. You couldn't care less.
>

No, actually I wouldn't have. Abortion is a completely different deal. If you want to talk about abortion, then talk about abortion, But this dumb "Cuccinelli wants to outlaw butt sex and blow jobs" talking point is idiotic.


> I do give a shit about this law - as do many
> people - and other laws lke it. For starter's,
> we've become the laughingstock of the nation. More
> importantly, I think Cuccinelli is just plan
> batshit crazy and fundamentally evil. He would do
> incalcuble damage to women, the LGBT community,
> and anyone else he disagrees with (remember UVA?).


Nobody other than those pushing the story and only as a talking point. If it's an embarrassment, then that's because they've promoted the story in the way that they have. As I said, there are legit issues with such a law even given the more realistic interpretation of the rationale for his arguing the case in the court. But you don't want to talk about that. You want to twist it to the extreme for effect. Again, the director for the VA ACLU and the head of an LGBT group has made the exact same argument for why such laws are there. Where's the outrage?

duhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 85 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > "nuuuu uhhhhhhhhh"
>
> (fixed for clarity)

Youre so clever.

Still waiting to see those people charged.

Or are we at the point where you dont even make any attempt to deal in fact and just say whatever bullshit comes into your head?

For someone so oppossed to Cuccinelli you really struggle to come up with a reason why other than the R in front of his name.

Yeah I am more and more convinced it's all just a bunch of scare tactic BS.

Funny how these liberals only care about "real freedoms", like the freedom to get boned up the ass is a freedom.

Who cares if your taxes are thru the roof, you are de facto disarmed and government controls your health care?

The brave Democrat Party is fighting hard for YOUR right to butt sex.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah I am more and more convinced it's all just a
> bunch of scare tactic BS.
>
> Funny how these liberals only care about "real
> freedoms", like the freedom to get boned up the
> ass is a freedom.
>
> Who cares if your taxes are thru the roof, you are
> de facto disarmed and government controls your
> health care?
>
> The brave Democrat Party is fighting hard for YOUR
> right to butt sex.

Yeah, but Ken thinks criminalizing adultery's a good idea, too.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/ken-cuccinelli-once-backed-anti-adultery-laws-94620.html#ixzz2ZtNVqAoI

It's The Wacky Ken Show Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah I am more and more convinced it's all just
> a
> > bunch of scare tactic BS.
> >
> > Funny how these liberals only care about "real
> > freedoms", like the freedom to get boned up the
> > ass is a freedom.
> >
> > Who cares if your taxes are thru the roof, you
> are
> > de facto disarmed and government controls your
> > health care?
> >
> > The brave Democrat Party is fighting hard for
> YOUR
> > right to butt sex.
>
> Yeah, but Ken thinks criminalizing adultery's a
> good idea, too.
>
> http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/ken-cuccinel
> li-once-backed-anti-adultery-laws-94620.html#ixzz2
> ZtNVqAoI
Attachments:

.
Attachments:

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah I am more and more convinced it's all just a
> bunch of scare tactic BS.
>
> Funny how these liberals only care about "real
> freedoms", like the freedom to get boned up the
> ass is a freedom.
>
> Who cares if your taxes are thru the roof, you are
> de facto disarmed and government controls your
> health care?
>
> The brave Democrat Party is fighting hard for YOUR
> right to butt sex.


Why wouldn't the "freedom to get boned up the ass" be a freedom? After all, it is a consenting adults bone, and a consenting adults ass. (keep it a crime if there is a non-consenting adult or a minor involved...that is not what this discussion is about).

Jesus Christ, don't we have other things to worry about?

"The brave Democrat Party is fighting hard for your right to butt sex".

No, doesn't it seem the brave Republican Party seems to be fighting hard for making butt sex a criminal act?

@ bass akwards-

Have you taken the time to read or concern yourself with the fact that an elimination of the current law on sodomy could open up a pandoras box of litigation from people convicted of forcible or underage sodomy who would request their convictions thrown out or cases retried?


This is nothing but a political football for liberals.

You are running on a false narrative.

What does running on a false narrative mean?

How would "an elimination of the current law on sodomy could open up a pandoras box of litigation from people convicted of forcible or underage sodomy who would request their convictions thrown out or cases retried"?

That seems silly, as others have posited herein that the law, as proposed, would never be enforced against consenting adults. LOL.

Are you suggesting that it would make it legal for forcible sodomy? How so? Who would be for that?

Aren't we talking about consensual sodomy?

Otherwise, do you concern yourself, or care, what 2 consenting adults do with their bone, or ass? Or bone, and mouth? I for one, kinda like the idea of my bone in me ladies mouth (in concept...would never want to break the law, of course).

If you do care about this, Why?

wing butt? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What does running on a false narrative mean?
>
> How would "an elimination of the current law on
> sodomy could open up a pandoras box of litigation
> from people convicted of forcible or underage
> sodomy who would request their convictions thrown
> out or cases retried"?
>
> That seems silly, as others have posited herein
> that the law, as proposed, would never be enforced
> against consenting adults. LOL.
>
> Are you suggesting that it would make it legal for
> forcible sodomy? How so? Who would be for that?
>
> Aren't we talking about consensual sodomy?
>
> Otherwise, do you concern yourself, or care, what
> 2 consenting adults do with their bone, or ass? Or
> bone, and mouth? I for one, kinda like the idea of
> my bone in me ladies mouth (in concept...would
> never want to break the law, of course).
>
> If you do care about this, Why?


If someone was convicted for FORCIBLE SODOMY before the sodomy was legalized, they could very well contest that their conviction is INVALID and it needs to be thrown out.

DO you think a judge will just be able to resentence someone for FORCIBLE RAPE without a conviction? Or do you assume that the old conviction is just automatically modified?

In an ideal scenario, VA would stick with prosecutions based on sexual assault without the enhancement for sodomy. Eventually by attrition, there would be no one imprisoned for sodomy. Then, legislature could vote (rightfully) to repeal the law.

All this talk of bedroom police is just the work of liberal drama bitches. None of this is happening.

"If someone was convicted for FORCIBLE SODOMY before the sodomy was legalized, they could very well contest that their conviction is INVALID and it needs to be thrown out."

How?

You need to be able to separate FORCIBLE anything from any activity between two consenting ADULTS. That is the distinction.

If in fact that could happen...that somebody who forcibly sodomized could say, hey, now that sodomy between 2 consenting adults is now legal, I'm gonna get mine thrown out (which it doesn't seem like it could) are you still concerned with sodomy between 2 consenting adults?

If you are, why?

If you suggest that it is a law that wouldn't be enforced against consenting adults, than I would ask, why is it being pushed for (in other words, why have it all...seems like a waste to me to even spend time discussing a law that wouldn't be enforced) and I would also suggest you have a great deal of confidence in the government, which, of course, I thought most right siders (including myself) do not.

Do you trust the government to make those kinds of decisions?

Why do you care what 2 consenting adults do?

@ Big Guv- I could give two stinky shits what you and your boyfriend are into Obama Lover.

Read what I posted again. If an element of a crime is removed, the convicted can seek a legal remedy or vacation of sentence.

Again, dipshit... NO ONE is being charged with consensual sodomy, no one. Cooch has been states attorney for almost four years and he has brought no cases. None of the local commonwealths attorney give a damn. NO one is prosecuting these consensual cases.

80 posts on this thread, not a single case of criminal prosecution of consensual sodomy.

Why's that?

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

What's with the name calling and anger?

Why not just answer the questions-are you against consenting adults getting hummers?

Never had one? Sorry-explains a great deal.

I could give two stinky shits what you and your boyfriend are into Obama Lover.

Well, smart guy, you should really say, you COULDN'T give two stinky sh***'s...

It doesn't make sense in the context of what you are trying to to say that you COULD give two stinky sh***s.

Plus, you already said the exact same thing one post earlier, so now I think you are just sputtering mad.

Hulk angry!

Sorry. big boy!!!

Don't worry yourself, bitch ass.

I voted for Warner back in 02 or whenever, voted for him for Congress too (which was a mistake)

I don't even have a grudge against McAuliffe, I think the guys a shrewd hustler and probably doesn't have a huge ideological commitment to liberal policies on a state level. I haven't ruled out voting for him.

But it's pretty fucking hard to support or respect the Dems when they seem to live for the racial and homo scare story.

OK, you're right. Cooch wants to put cameras in your bedroom and lock up gays. No more abortions for your sister.

And you'll be forced to pray.

Be afraid, very afraid.

Big Guv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> How?
>
> You need to be able to separate FORCIBLE anything
> from any activity between two consenting ADULTS.
> That is the distinction.
>
> If in fact that could happen...that somebody who
> forcibly sodomized could say, hey, now that sodomy
> between 2 consenting adults is now legal, I'm
> gonna get mine thrown out (which it doesn't seem
> like it could) are you still concerned with sodomy
> between 2 consenting adults?
>
> If you are, why?
>
> If you suggest that it is a law that wouldn't be
> enforced against consenting adults, than I would
> ask, why is it being pushed for (in other words,
> why have it all...seems like a waste to me to even
> spend time discussing a law that wouldn't be
> enforced) and I would also suggest you have a
> great deal of confidence in the government, which,
> of course, I thought most right siders (including
> myself) do not.
>
> Do you trust the government to make those kinds of
> decisions?
>
> Why do you care what 2 consenting adults do?


You clearly dont have the slightlest clue how laws work.

If someone was convicted under the sodomy law when that law was disbanded they can challenge their conviction because it happened under an unjust law. The new law that would replace the old one isnt retro active to when they committed their crime.

The VA ACLU supports the law knowing full well it covers something the rape law doesnt cover. Therefore if you throw the law out those convicted under it are set free.

Its not rocket science.

Liberal Logic 85 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Youre so clever.
>
> Still waiting to see those people charged.
>
> Or are we at the point where you dont even make
> any attempt to deal in fact and just say whatever
> bullshit comes into your head?
>
> For someone so oppossed to Cuccinelli you really
> struggle to come up with a reason why other than
> the R in front of his name.


The evidence of past charges is a strawman argument when discussing the potential for future abuses. The lack of a charge in the past does not negate the potential for a charge in the future.

A metric like past charges can be used for trend analysis but attempting to extrapolate that into a predictor for the future is simply not accurate.

Your comment about my opposition to Cuccinelli is also a strawman argument in that this thread is about 1 specific topic, not "All of the reasons I think Cuccinelli is an asshat".

Not to mention that it was Cuccinelli whom was the most outspoken in committee and intrigal in killing fixing the law on the senate floor. We'd be talking about where he stands on the issues and his plans for the future of Virginia.

He'd be fucked in that conversation too. There's a reason we're flapping in the wind talking about his blow job crusade. That's all he's got.

duhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The evidence of past charges is a strawman
> argument when discussing the potential for future
> abuses. The lack of a charge in the past does not
> negate the potential for a charge in the future.


It's not a "straw man", the straw man is the boogie man fear factor of actual enforcement of an admittedly archaic law.

How will the enforcement take place? Will local county prosecutors be eager to start enforcing this law? What will change? Will America "find religion" and go crazy?

NO. It's a scare tactic.



> A metric like past charges can be used for trend
> analysis but attempting to extrapolate that into a
> predictor for the future is simply not accurate.

Sounds brilliant but it's a bunch of verbal mush. How about the old Blue Laws of VA? They've been gone a while, they were never enforced.


> Your comment about my opposition to Cuccinelli is
> also a strawman argument in that this thread is
> about 1 specific topic, not "All of the reasons I
> think Cuccinelli is an asshat".

Yawn.

It is just not realistic to believe that anyone wants to enforce sodomy laws in VA.

Homosexuals and naïve college students can be rallied with this kind of scare tactic but smart people know better.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> duhhhh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The evidence of past charges is a strawman
> > argument when discussing the potential for
> future
> > abuses. The lack of a charge in the past does
> not
> > negate the potential for a charge in the
> future.
>
>
> It's not a "straw man", the straw man is the
> boogie man fear factor of actual enforcement of an
> admittedly archaic law.
>
> How will the enforcement take place? Will local
> county prosecutors be eager to start enforcing
> this law? What will change? Will America "find
> religion" and go crazy?
>
> NO. It's a scare tactic.
>
>
>
> > A metric like past charges can be used for
> trend
> > analysis but attempting to extrapolate that into
> a
> > predictor for the future is simply not
> accurate.
>
> Sounds brilliant but it's a bunch of verbal mush.
> How about the old Blue Laws of VA? They've been
> gone a while, they were never enforced.
>
>
> > Your comment about my opposition to Cuccinelli
> is
> > also a strawman argument in that this thread is
> > about 1 specific topic, not "All of the reasons
> I
> > think Cuccinelli is an asshat".
>
> Yawn.
>
> It is just not realistic to believe that anyone
> wants to enforce sodomy laws in VA.
>
> Homosexuals and naïve college students can be
> rallied with this kind of scare tactic but smart
> people know better.

Geez, how would you know?

So, incidentally, if the statute is amended, it DOESN'T affect past convictions. Why would Ken be against amending the statute so that it DOESN'T reach consensual adult conduct? For the same reason he favors retaining the laws against adultery?

OMG they're after our KY!
Attachments:

duhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 85 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Youre so clever.
> >
> > Still waiting to see those people charged.
> >
> > Or are we at the point where you dont even make
> > any attempt to deal in fact and just say
> whatever
> > bullshit comes into your head?
> >
> > For someone so oppossed to Cuccinelli you
> really
> > struggle to come up with a reason why other
> than
> > the R in front of his name.
>
>
> The evidence of past charges is a strawman
> argument when discussing the potential for future
> abuses. The lack of a charge in the past does not
> negate the potential for a charge in the future.
>
> A metric like past charges can be used for trend
> analysis but attempting to extrapolate that into a
> predictor for the future is simply not accurate.
>
> Your comment about my opposition to Cuccinelli is
> also a strawman argument in that this thread is
> about 1 specific topic, not "All of the reasons I
> think Cuccinelli is an asshat".


OMG...not the "strawman" contention...AGAIN.

Learn some more fallacies...they're all over the internet.

Masked man...conjunction...red herring...syllogistic.

I think the strawman fallacy is the only one you know...cus you always seem to want to pigeonhole other's arguments into it.

LOFL.

Strawman indeed.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> People with something to lose can be
> rallied with this kind of scare tactic but people who don't stand to be impacted, or agree with it don't care.


fixed for accuracy.

It's easy to say something WON'T be enforced, however, you nor I have any real say on what will or will not be enforced so our OPINION on whether it will ever be enforced is little more than an anonymous opinion.

It's good that you're willing to risk someone else's life off your assumption, but you have no "skin in the game" either.

(he he see what I did there)

The only definitive way to prevent someone from being prosecuted under this law for their sexual preference between consenting adults is to amend the law.

You can argue likelyhoods and probably nots but in the end, that is the ONLY way to prevent it. Period. There's no way to argue that this isn't true.

The idea that the legislature can not find a way to amend the law to protect consensual activity between adults without setting all the pedophiles free is also false.

They may not WANT to. It may require some actual effort but it's entirely possible.

The reality is that it's a politically toxic topic. They don't want to put their name on that kind of legislature because if they do, it will be campaign ad #1 for their opposition come election time to ruffle the feathers of all the dead weight social conservatives that get all bent out of shape over gay rights (and that goes across party lines in both directions).

"State Senator voted in support of gay rights"

I have been charged FOR oral does that count

Strawman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> OMG...not the "strawman" contention...AGAIN.

>
> I think the strawman fallacy is the only one you
> know...cus you always seem to want to pigeonhole
> other's arguments into it.
>
> LOFL.
>


> Strawman indeed.


Considering you can not find another instance of me invoking or claiming strawman anywhere else on this site, ever, you are presenting a completely and purposely false argument here in an attempt to invalidate my statements because you have no pertinent facts.

It's the intellectual equivalent to "nuu uhhhhh"

Again.

It's ok.

I kinda agree strawman is a LITTLE bit of a reach depending on your interpretation of the definition, I just figured it would be a little easier for you to understand than explaining how action or lack of action in the past can not reasonably be extrapolated into anything more than a poorly defined, very tenuous potential rate of future likelyhood.

Blah Blah FUcking Blah...


OK.


I am just going to let all you wimpy liberals and college kids make believe that you are taking a heroic stance against tyranny.

Seriously, you are just being histrionic lightweights and slacktivists.

Again, NO ONE has been charged in recent history for sodomy.

I'll check this post in a few weeks and see if there has been any new arrests or charges revealed, I sure want to hear about them.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blah Blah FUcking Blah...
>
>
> OK.
>
>
> I am just going to let all you wimpy liberals and
> college kids make believe that you are taking a
> heroic stance against tyranny.
>
> Seriously, you are just being histrionic
> lightweights and slacktivists.
>
> Again, NO ONE has been charged in recent history
> for sodomy.
>
> I'll check this post in a few weeks and see if
> there has been any new arrests or charges
> revealed, I sure want to hear about them.


You keep repeating the same thing over and over and over.

No one has been prosecuted for this in the past, so therefore, no one will ever be prosecuted for this in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Formal_fallacies

Yawn.


Thread is about the cases.


None exist.


Do some research.

Get back to me or come up with a better scare story.

duhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The evidence of past charges is a strawman
> argument when discussing the potential for future
> abuses. The lack of a charge in the past does not
> negate the potential for a charge in the future.

Actually no you idiot the evidence of current cases of people serving jail time is what this is all about.

You really are a complete moron.

> A metric like past charges can be used for trend
> analysis but attempting to extrapolate that into a
> predictor for the future is simply not accurate.

What are you even talking about? Seek help.

You do understand its people currently in jail serving time for molesting kids that would be set free and removed from prediator lists right?

Oh who am I kidding you clearly dont understand anything.

> Your comment about my opposition to Cuccinelli is
> also a strawman argument in that this thread is
> about 1 specific topic, not "All of the reasons I
> think Cuccinelli is an asshat".

Bla bla bla bla bla bla

Yes facts are straw man arguments but your bullshit that doesnt make the slightest bit of sense and your lack of understanding of everything is all that matters.

Give it up ferfux

Liberal Logic 85 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Actually no you idiot the evidence of current
> cases of people serving jail time is what this is
> all about.
>
> You really are a complete moron.
>

>
> You do understand its people currently in jail
> serving time for molesting kids that would be set
> free and removed from prediator lists right?
>
> Oh who am I kidding you clearly dont understand
> anything.
>

You keep saying this but it is simply incorrect. There is, in fact, a number of ways to address the current law without putting any previous convictions in jeopardy. This is an intellectually dishonest argument.

I understand quite clearly that you have said little more than "nu uhhhh" and claimed inaccurate things as fact in this discussion.